Tully: Why Glenda Ritz's job should be appointed, not elected

Dec. 5, 2013

Voting is a sacred and fundamental American tradition. But do we elect too many officeholders? / Danese Kenon

Written by

There’s been a lot of chatter lately about the concept of having the governor appoint, rather than having the voters elect, Indiana’s superintendent of public instruction.

The chatter has ticked up over the past year, since Indiana’s pesky voters went out and elected Glenda Ritz, a Democrat, to the state’s top education post. Her victory over former superintendent Tony Bennett last November crushed the hopes, dreams and plans of many in the GOP, and forced first-year Gov. Mike Pence to deal with a schools chief with whom he often disagrees.

I’ve long supported the idea of having governors appoint the state schools chief. I supported it in 2004 when both Republican Mitch Daniels and then-Democratic Gov. Joe Kernan endorsed the idea, and I supported it in 2011 when many state leaders were discussing it. Why? Because education is the most important issue facing Indiana, and a governor should be the clear leader on it. A governor should be judged heavily on his or her education agenda, and on the performance of the state’s schools.

That said, this would be the wrong time, an awful time, to change the state’s method of filling the superintendent’s post. She’s wrong on many issues, but Ritz won a fair election. Changing the policy would be a blatant, cynical power grab. It can’t happen. At least not now.

Still, the issue is worth considering in the longer-term, say beginning in 2020. That would be after Ritz’ reelection year, and, if she wins in 2016, after she has served eight years. It would take politics out of the issue and focus the legislature’s attention on doing what’s right.

And what’s right is to have an education secretary — Democrat or Republican — who is a part of the governor’s team.

The change would be reminiscent of the decision in 2008 to give control of the police department to the mayor of Indianapolis. That was the right thing to do, as the issue affects just about everything in Indianapolis and giving power over it to someone else weakens a mayor’s ability to holistically lead a city forward.

The same goes for education and the governor.

As long as we’re pondering this, the state should also look at other statewide offices and explain why we fill them with elections. Seriously, do we really need to elect the state’s auditor? After all, the one we elected in 2010 resigned this summer and the man selected to replace him followed suit last week.

It’s not exactly a position worthy of statewide elections. Its main duties, according to the state website, are “overseeing and disbursing county, city, town, and school tax distributions, (and) paying the state's bills.” It’s an administrative office, as is the state treasurer. Elections simply infuse them with unnecessary politics.

Indiana is almost 200 years old. It’s time to rethink how we do certain things.